What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Interpreters Study Bible New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha
Purchased new, never used.
Unknown Binding
First published May 1, 2003
47 people are currently reading
320 people want to read
About the author
Anonymous
791k books3,367 followersBooks can be attributed to "Anonymous" for several reasons:
* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author
Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.
See also: Anonymous
* They are officially published under that name
* They are traditional stories not attributed to a specific author
* They are religious texts not generally attributed to a specific author
Books whose authorship is merely uncertain should be attributed to Unknown.
See also: Anonymous
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 6, 2018
One of my hobbies in college (when I was still a baptist and the most important crisis of the day was making sure the moderates didn't gain control of the seminaries) was surveying various study bibles (often those of liberal persuasion) and examining their ideological presuppositions. The classic example was the Oxford Study Bible (Revised Standard Version). I looked at evangelical study bibles, too, but the liberal ones were always more revealing.
Back in the day the reigning paradigm of unbelief was the old-school bowel movement of German higher-criticism reflected in American universities. They reasoned that the supernatural of the Bible was obviously false because 19th century Protestant scholarship had clearly shown it to be so (note the Hegelian presupposition here: we in our moment of history have reached the apex of intellectual history and [only] we get to be the arbiter of what is true or false). Thus, if you looked at the study notes of any particular passage, you would see some learned professor explaining it away on naturalistic grounds. (Whole dissertations have since been written on William Barclay’s unbelieving presuppositions that made his scholarship possible). The study bible soon became boring. One could almost anticipate the next note of unbelief.
Liberalism, though, soon underwent a strange mutation at Yale University. Some liberals suddenly realized that they were as myopic as the fundamentalists they had attacked. The fundamentalist has a blind faith in the truth of the text. Oddly enough, the liberal realized that he had a blind faith in the falsity of the text. Other liberals realized that both fundamentalists and liberals approached the text in the same way—it was simply a document to be analyzed and whose meaning was ALWAYS determined outside the liturgical life of the Church. What was to be done?
Liberals soon proclaimed themselves “post-liberals.” They realized (quite correctly) that narrative was a fundamental component, not only of Scripture, but also of reality in general. Emphasis soon went to the narrative of Scripture in its received canonical form, and not to the various (and often admittedly unknowable) strata of oral Hebrew traditions. And with the use of narrative as a philosophical tool, post-liberals (who still remained leftist and “progressive” in their social morality ) realized a fatal weakness in their forebears: if Scripture is really fake after all, and the supernatural doesn’t happen, how can we call upon a God to take away the wealth of social structures of the middle class conservative American voter? Only a God who really acted in history could confiscate and redistribtute wealth!
Okay, on to the actual contents of this study bible itself. Like any study bible, the notes are often “hit or miss,” and this isn’t a fault of the editors themselves. There are different writers for each book who have various levels of intelligence and competency. Therefore, it is hard to make generalizations about the study bible. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, a number of observations are possible:
• The authors of this study bible are committed to the thesis that the Jewish editorial readers at The New York Times must be appeased at all costs. Anytime there is a reference in the New Testament to the sins of the Jewish people (e.g., Christ calls them children of the devil; St Paul says wrath will come on them to the uttermost, etc), the editors explain it away with the line that anti-semitism must be condemned at all costs (except when perpetrated against Arab Christians).
Further, when speaking of the glorious prophecies for the Christian church the author is quick (see notes on Jeremiah 33ff) to point out this doesn’t apply to Christians but to Jews today. This is an example of letting post-Holocaust guilt determine exegesis. In other words, for the authors desire to reject modernism, they embrace fully its tenets.
• The authors generally have a negative image of “the male.” Like all feminists they see in every passage an example of masculine social structures being destroyed. While it is true many passages do reverse the social orders, not every passage does and to keep maintaining it is reading conclusions into the text.
It gets worse, though. The authors of both Luke and Acts see (correctly) that the Christian image of the Trinity is masculine and assumes a certain social order on earth (later thinkers were to draw the conclusion that the monarchia of the Father assumes a political monarchy as the ideal on earth). This is an example where post-liberals are far more honest readers of Scripture than American evangelicals. The liberal realizes the monarchical and hierarchical implications of the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, and thus rejects it. She doesn’t reject the Trinity, per se, but reworks it around postmodern and feminist categories. She will answer to God for that, but at least she perceives the implications of the text far more clearly than evangelicals.
Conclusion
There are a few let downs with this bible (aside from the unbelieving problems listed above). The first is the joke of a translation that is the New Revised Standard. While it captures English grammatical mores nicely, even the most jaded feminist (forgive the redundancy) has to admit that the text reads in a wooden and blocky fashion. The King James Version created the modern English language, of that there is no argument. Even later revisions to the King James implicitly kept much of the syntax and wording of familiar and beloved passages. The NRSV utterly destroys this.
I didn’t expect all the notes to be equally good, and I don’t begrudge the editors that decision. In many ways, though, the thought and format of this study bible is far inferior to the bibles that had Bruce Metzger as the editor. Metzger always had interesting (if wrong) articles on the nature of Biblical scholarship, the canon, and the formation of the Biblical text. This study bible has no articles on the canon (which remains a gaping hole), but it does have a decent article on the formation of the text. Of course, there is the mandatory article on the superiority of feminist criticism. (What the feminist doesn’t realize is that given her emphasis on “suspicion” and “critique,” I, too, can employ the same suspicion and critique on her article and on that basis render it false. Deconstructionism devours itself).
Back in the day the reigning paradigm of unbelief was the old-school bowel movement of German higher-criticism reflected in American universities. They reasoned that the supernatural of the Bible was obviously false because 19th century Protestant scholarship had clearly shown it to be so (note the Hegelian presupposition here: we in our moment of history have reached the apex of intellectual history and [only] we get to be the arbiter of what is true or false). Thus, if you looked at the study notes of any particular passage, you would see some learned professor explaining it away on naturalistic grounds. (Whole dissertations have since been written on William Barclay’s unbelieving presuppositions that made his scholarship possible). The study bible soon became boring. One could almost anticipate the next note of unbelief.
Liberalism, though, soon underwent a strange mutation at Yale University. Some liberals suddenly realized that they were as myopic as the fundamentalists they had attacked. The fundamentalist has a blind faith in the truth of the text. Oddly enough, the liberal realized that he had a blind faith in the falsity of the text. Other liberals realized that both fundamentalists and liberals approached the text in the same way—it was simply a document to be analyzed and whose meaning was ALWAYS determined outside the liturgical life of the Church. What was to be done?
Liberals soon proclaimed themselves “post-liberals.” They realized (quite correctly) that narrative was a fundamental component, not only of Scripture, but also of reality in general. Emphasis soon went to the narrative of Scripture in its received canonical form, and not to the various (and often admittedly unknowable) strata of oral Hebrew traditions. And with the use of narrative as a philosophical tool, post-liberals (who still remained leftist and “progressive” in their social morality ) realized a fatal weakness in their forebears: if Scripture is really fake after all, and the supernatural doesn’t happen, how can we call upon a God to take away the wealth of social structures of the middle class conservative American voter? Only a God who really acted in history could confiscate and redistribtute wealth!
Okay, on to the actual contents of this study bible itself. Like any study bible, the notes are often “hit or miss,” and this isn’t a fault of the editors themselves. There are different writers for each book who have various levels of intelligence and competency. Therefore, it is hard to make generalizations about the study bible. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, a number of observations are possible:
• The authors of this study bible are committed to the thesis that the Jewish editorial readers at The New York Times must be appeased at all costs. Anytime there is a reference in the New Testament to the sins of the Jewish people (e.g., Christ calls them children of the devil; St Paul says wrath will come on them to the uttermost, etc), the editors explain it away with the line that anti-semitism must be condemned at all costs (except when perpetrated against Arab Christians).
Further, when speaking of the glorious prophecies for the Christian church the author is quick (see notes on Jeremiah 33ff) to point out this doesn’t apply to Christians but to Jews today. This is an example of letting post-Holocaust guilt determine exegesis. In other words, for the authors desire to reject modernism, they embrace fully its tenets.
• The authors generally have a negative image of “the male.” Like all feminists they see in every passage an example of masculine social structures being destroyed. While it is true many passages do reverse the social orders, not every passage does and to keep maintaining it is reading conclusions into the text.
It gets worse, though. The authors of both Luke and Acts see (correctly) that the Christian image of the Trinity is masculine and assumes a certain social order on earth (later thinkers were to draw the conclusion that the monarchia of the Father assumes a political monarchy as the ideal on earth). This is an example where post-liberals are far more honest readers of Scripture than American evangelicals. The liberal realizes the monarchical and hierarchical implications of the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, and thus rejects it. She doesn’t reject the Trinity, per se, but reworks it around postmodern and feminist categories. She will answer to God for that, but at least she perceives the implications of the text far more clearly than evangelicals.
Conclusion
There are a few let downs with this bible (aside from the unbelieving problems listed above). The first is the joke of a translation that is the New Revised Standard. While it captures English grammatical mores nicely, even the most jaded feminist (forgive the redundancy) has to admit that the text reads in a wooden and blocky fashion. The King James Version created the modern English language, of that there is no argument. Even later revisions to the King James implicitly kept much of the syntax and wording of familiar and beloved passages. The NRSV utterly destroys this.
I didn’t expect all the notes to be equally good, and I don’t begrudge the editors that decision. In many ways, though, the thought and format of this study bible is far inferior to the bibles that had Bruce Metzger as the editor. Metzger always had interesting (if wrong) articles on the nature of Biblical scholarship, the canon, and the formation of the Biblical text. This study bible has no articles on the canon (which remains a gaping hole), but it does have a decent article on the formation of the text. Of course, there is the mandatory article on the superiority of feminist criticism. (What the feminist doesn’t realize is that given her emphasis on “suspicion” and “critique,” I, too, can employ the same suspicion and critique on her article and on that basis render it false. Deconstructionism devours itself).
March 31, 2012
One of my hobbies in college (when I was still a baptist and the most important crisis of the day was making sure the moderates didn’t gain control of the seminaries) was surveying various study bibles (often those of liberal persuasion) and examining their ideological presuppositions. The classic example was the Oxford Study Bible (Revised Standard Version). I looked at evangelical study bibles, too, but the liberal ones were always more interesting.
Back in the day the reigning paradigm of unbelief was the old-school bowel movement of German higher-criticism reflected in American universities. They reasoned that the supernatural of the Bible was obviously false because 19th century Protestant scholarship had clearly shown it to be so (note the Hegelian presupposition here: we in our moment of history have reached the apex of intellectual history and [only] we get to be the arbiter of what is true or false). Thus, if you looked at the study notes of any particular passage, you would see some learned professor explaining it away on naturalistic grounds. (Whole dissertations have since been written on William Barclay’s unbelieving presuppositions that made his scholarship possible). The study bible soon became boring. One could almost anticipate the next note of unbelief.
Liberalism, though, soon underwent a strange mutation at Yale University. Some liberals suddenly realized that they were as myopic as the fundamentalists they had attacked. The fundamentalist has a blind faith in the truth of the text. Oddly enough, the liberal realized that he had a blind faith in the falsity of the text. Other liberals realized that both fundamentalists and liberals approached the text in the same way—it was simply a document to be analyzed and whose meaning was ALWAYS determined outside the liturgical life of the Church. What was to be done?
Liberals soon proclaimed themselves “post-liberals.” They realized (quite correctly) that narrative was a fundamental component, not only of Scripture, but also of reality in general. Emphasis soon went to the narrative of Scripture in its received canonical form,[i] and not to the various (and often admittedly unknowable) strata of oral Hebrew traditions. And with the use of narrative as a philosophical tool, post-liberals (who still remained leftist and “progressive” in their social morality[ii]) realized a fatal weakness in their forebears: if Scripture is really fake after all, and the supernatural doesn’t happen, how can we call upon a God to take away the wealth of social structures of the middle class conservative American voter? Only a God who really acted in history could confiscate and redistribtute wealth!
Okay, on to the actual contents of this study bible itself. Like any study bible, the notes are often “hit or miss,” and this isn’t a fault of the editors themselves. There are different writers for each book who have various levels of intelligence and competency. Therefore, it is hard to make generalizations about the study bible. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, a number of observations are possible:
The authors of this study bible are committed to the thesis that the Jewish editorial readers at The New York Times must be appeased at all costs. Anytime there is a reference in the New Testament to the sins of the Jewish people (e.g., Christ calls them children of the devil; St Paul says wrath will come on them to the uttermost, etc; St John calls them a synagogue of Satan), the editors explain it away with the line that anti-semitism must be condemned at all costs (except when perpetrated against Arab Christians, who are also anti-semites).
Further, when speaking of the glorious prophecies for the Christian church the author is quick (see notes on Jeremiah 33ff) to point out this doesn’t apply to Christians but to Jews today. This is an example of letting post-Holocaust guilt determine exegesis. In other words, for the authors desire to reject modernism, they embrace fully its tenets.
The authors generally have a negative image of “the male.” Like all feminists they see in every passage an example of masculine social structures being destroyed. While it is true many passages do reverse the social orders, not every passage does and to keep maintaining it is reading conclusions into the text.
It gets worse, though. The editors of both Luke and Acts see (correctly) that the Christian image of the Trinity is masculine and assumes a certain social order on earth (later thinkers were to draw the conclusion that the monarchia of the Father assumes a political monarchy as the ideal on earth). This is an example where post-liberals are far more honest readers of Scripture than American evangelicals. The liberal realizes the monarchical and hierarchical[iii] implications of the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, and thus rejects it. She doesn’t reject the Trinity, per se, but reworks it around postmodern and feminist categories. She will answer to God for that, but at least she perceives the implications of the text far more clearly than evangelicals.
Conclusion
There are a few let downs with this bible (aside from the unbelieving problems listed above). The first is the joke of a translation that is the New Revised Standard Version. While it captures English grammatical mores nicely, even the most jaded feminist (forgive the redundancy) has to admit that the text reads in a wooden and blocky fashion. The King James Version created the modern English language, of that there is no argument. Even later revisions to the King James implicitly kept much of the syntax and wording of familiar and beloved passages. The NRSV utterly destroys this.[iv]
I didn’t expect all the notes to be equally good, and I don’t begrudge the editors that decision. In many ways, though, the thought and format of this study bible is far inferior to the bibles that had Bruce Metzger as the editor. Metzger always had interesting (if wrong) articles on the nature of Biblical scholarship, the canon, and the formation of the Biblical text. This study bible has no articles on the canon (which remains a gaping hole), but it does have a decent article on the formation of the text. Of course, there is the mandatory article on the superiority of feminist criticism. (What the feminist doesn’t realize is that given her emphasis on “suspicion” and “critique,” I, too, can employ the same suspicion and critique on her article and on that basis render it false. Deconstructionism devours itself).
[i] The problem of how liberals and evangelicals justified the canon on scriptural basis alone was never answered but simply assumed and removed to another place. This remains a fatal weakness in both post-liberal and evangelical scholarship today.
[ii] This might not be true, though. Many of the doyens of liberal scholarship, while rejecting evangelical social ethics, were not comfortable with nihilistic ethics, either. They may not have joined the John Birch Society, but neither did they want the existing social order threatened too much, since they would then be out of a job).
[iii] Not that the Trinity is a hierarchy, for that is neo-Platonism, but that in its masculine language and in the other Scriptural commands about male headship, a hierarchy on earth is assumed as normative.
[iv] Though Evangelicals probably do not see this given their indifference or hostility to liturgy, the NRSV, in altering the wording of the most beloved passages, contains within it an attack on the nature of public liturgy. Liturgy, especially the public reading and recitation of the Scriptures, is a formative event. It forms the soul and shapes the memory through the repetition of familiar passages. When the NRSV changes these passages, it changes the event of liturgy itself. (This is probably connected to why mainstream churches who use the NRSV also want to change the liturgy to more feminine constructs).
Back in the day the reigning paradigm of unbelief was the old-school bowel movement of German higher-criticism reflected in American universities. They reasoned that the supernatural of the Bible was obviously false because 19th century Protestant scholarship had clearly shown it to be so (note the Hegelian presupposition here: we in our moment of history have reached the apex of intellectual history and [only] we get to be the arbiter of what is true or false). Thus, if you looked at the study notes of any particular passage, you would see some learned professor explaining it away on naturalistic grounds. (Whole dissertations have since been written on William Barclay’s unbelieving presuppositions that made his scholarship possible). The study bible soon became boring. One could almost anticipate the next note of unbelief.
Liberalism, though, soon underwent a strange mutation at Yale University. Some liberals suddenly realized that they were as myopic as the fundamentalists they had attacked. The fundamentalist has a blind faith in the truth of the text. Oddly enough, the liberal realized that he had a blind faith in the falsity of the text. Other liberals realized that both fundamentalists and liberals approached the text in the same way—it was simply a document to be analyzed and whose meaning was ALWAYS determined outside the liturgical life of the Church. What was to be done?
Liberals soon proclaimed themselves “post-liberals.” They realized (quite correctly) that narrative was a fundamental component, not only of Scripture, but also of reality in general. Emphasis soon went to the narrative of Scripture in its received canonical form,[i] and not to the various (and often admittedly unknowable) strata of oral Hebrew traditions. And with the use of narrative as a philosophical tool, post-liberals (who still remained leftist and “progressive” in their social morality[ii]) realized a fatal weakness in their forebears: if Scripture is really fake after all, and the supernatural doesn’t happen, how can we call upon a God to take away the wealth of social structures of the middle class conservative American voter? Only a God who really acted in history could confiscate and redistribtute wealth!
Okay, on to the actual contents of this study bible itself. Like any study bible, the notes are often “hit or miss,” and this isn’t a fault of the editors themselves. There are different writers for each book who have various levels of intelligence and competency. Therefore, it is hard to make generalizations about the study bible. On the other hand, with a few exceptions, a number of observations are possible:
The authors of this study bible are committed to the thesis that the Jewish editorial readers at The New York Times must be appeased at all costs. Anytime there is a reference in the New Testament to the sins of the Jewish people (e.g., Christ calls them children of the devil; St Paul says wrath will come on them to the uttermost, etc; St John calls them a synagogue of Satan), the editors explain it away with the line that anti-semitism must be condemned at all costs (except when perpetrated against Arab Christians, who are also anti-semites).
Further, when speaking of the glorious prophecies for the Christian church the author is quick (see notes on Jeremiah 33ff) to point out this doesn’t apply to Christians but to Jews today. This is an example of letting post-Holocaust guilt determine exegesis. In other words, for the authors desire to reject modernism, they embrace fully its tenets.
The authors generally have a negative image of “the male.” Like all feminists they see in every passage an example of masculine social structures being destroyed. While it is true many passages do reverse the social orders, not every passage does and to keep maintaining it is reading conclusions into the text.
It gets worse, though. The editors of both Luke and Acts see (correctly) that the Christian image of the Trinity is masculine and assumes a certain social order on earth (later thinkers were to draw the conclusion that the monarchia of the Father assumes a political monarchy as the ideal on earth). This is an example where post-liberals are far more honest readers of Scripture than American evangelicals. The liberal realizes the monarchical and hierarchical[iii] implications of the ancient doctrine of the Trinity, and thus rejects it. She doesn’t reject the Trinity, per se, but reworks it around postmodern and feminist categories. She will answer to God for that, but at least she perceives the implications of the text far more clearly than evangelicals.
Conclusion
There are a few let downs with this bible (aside from the unbelieving problems listed above). The first is the joke of a translation that is the New Revised Standard Version. While it captures English grammatical mores nicely, even the most jaded feminist (forgive the redundancy) has to admit that the text reads in a wooden and blocky fashion. The King James Version created the modern English language, of that there is no argument. Even later revisions to the King James implicitly kept much of the syntax and wording of familiar and beloved passages. The NRSV utterly destroys this.[iv]
I didn’t expect all the notes to be equally good, and I don’t begrudge the editors that decision. In many ways, though, the thought and format of this study bible is far inferior to the bibles that had Bruce Metzger as the editor. Metzger always had interesting (if wrong) articles on the nature of Biblical scholarship, the canon, and the formation of the Biblical text. This study bible has no articles on the canon (which remains a gaping hole), but it does have a decent article on the formation of the text. Of course, there is the mandatory article on the superiority of feminist criticism. (What the feminist doesn’t realize is that given her emphasis on “suspicion” and “critique,” I, too, can employ the same suspicion and critique on her article and on that basis render it false. Deconstructionism devours itself).
[i] The problem of how liberals and evangelicals justified the canon on scriptural basis alone was never answered but simply assumed and removed to another place. This remains a fatal weakness in both post-liberal and evangelical scholarship today.
[ii] This might not be true, though. Many of the doyens of liberal scholarship, while rejecting evangelical social ethics, were not comfortable with nihilistic ethics, either. They may not have joined the John Birch Society, but neither did they want the existing social order threatened too much, since they would then be out of a job).
[iii] Not that the Trinity is a hierarchy, for that is neo-Platonism, but that in its masculine language and in the other Scriptural commands about male headship, a hierarchy on earth is assumed as normative.
[iv] Though Evangelicals probably do not see this given their indifference or hostility to liturgy, the NRSV, in altering the wording of the most beloved passages, contains within it an attack on the nature of public liturgy. Liturgy, especially the public reading and recitation of the Scriptures, is a formative event. It forms the soul and shapes the memory through the repetition of familiar passages. When the NRSV changes these passages, it changes the event of liturgy itself. (This is probably connected to why mainstream churches who use the NRSV also want to change the liturgy to more feminine constructs).
June 21, 2019
The NISB stands, undoubtedly, as a landmark achievement amongst the ever-growing plethora of so-called “study Bibles.” While many of the offerings lack substance or have a bizarre focus (thinking here particularly of the “American Patriot’s Study Bible”), this study Bible provides deep engagement with the text, commitment to theological understanding, and is careful to make appropriate application. The contributors to this volume are a veritable “who’s who” of biblical scholarship. Many of the contributors have written widely-recognized commentaries on the books for which they contributed notes. Some have even written for the “New Interpreter’s Bible,” a massive multi-volume commentary edited by Leander Keck that is another landmark publication.
So far, so good; however, the NISB is written from within what is generally described as the “mainline Protestant” tradition and represents many of the commitments common to that stream. There is a deep-rooted suspicion of an overly “historical” or “literal” or “supernatural” interpretation of any text (particularly evident in the handling of the Pentateuchal narratives, the authorship of the epistles, and the Gospels’ miracles stories, including the Virgin Birth and Resurrection). Also prevalent is a consistent concern with the Bible’s “patriarchal” and “anti-Semitic” overtones. For those from my background (Oneness Pentecostal), then, this study Bible has a decidedly “liberal” slant.
Personally, I found that feature to be part of its value because it provided, in nice summary form, an overview of the mainline Protestant view of Scripture. In fact, included at the end are several articles on the authority and proper interpretation of Scripture that are very helpful in understanding this overall approach, which often appears so foreign and even offensive to Pentecostal interpretive sensibilities. Even if one disagrees (vehemently, perhaps) with any number of the claims made and conclusions reached, one still receives the benefit of seeing those propositions in context which helps those who disagree to craft more effective responses.
One thing that I appreciated was the deep commitment to illuminating the original context. I gleaned numerous insights on the ANE or Greco-Roman background of the text that wouldn’t be made available to the reader in, say, the “Life Application Study Bible.” Of course, this was often presented as a way to RESTRICT the meaning of the text, but the insights themselves were nonetheless valid.
Now, when I began this reading project about three years ago (with the now-ridiculous-sounding hope of completing my read-through in a single year), I was aware of the particular “bias.” Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to find that several notably conservative scholars had contributed at significant points (e.g., Joel Green on Luke, James R. Edwards on Romans, and Donald Hagner on Hebrews). I was further pleased to note the many places where more conservative views were acknowledged without disdain. On the whole, though decidedly “liberal,” there were a fair number of attempts at presenting an overall-balanced perspective. Enough, at least, to keep me from getting disgusted and giving up the book altogether!
There is a good bit of repetition but, of course, that is to be expected, I suppose. Study Bibles are reference works not really designed to be read “cover-to-cover”; therefore, each contributor tried to address all the relevant issues within the text rather than simply assuming they had been covered by earlier contributors. On the whole, I am glad that I took the time to work my way slowly through this book; the amount of information contained requires a slow pace. Also, I am glad that I read the work “cover-to-cover” because it gave me a sense of the mainline Protestant approach to the entire Bible…rather than just to this or that particular book.
Obviously, this is not, at least from my perspective, a “new convert’s” study Bible…one would be MUCH better served to begin with the “Apostolic Study Bible.” However, for more mature Christians, this work serves as a kind of broad introduction to the mainline Protestant way of thinking. If not ultimately convincing (at least, for me it wasn’t), it was at least enlightening.
So far, so good; however, the NISB is written from within what is generally described as the “mainline Protestant” tradition and represents many of the commitments common to that stream. There is a deep-rooted suspicion of an overly “historical” or “literal” or “supernatural” interpretation of any text (particularly evident in the handling of the Pentateuchal narratives, the authorship of the epistles, and the Gospels’ miracles stories, including the Virgin Birth and Resurrection). Also prevalent is a consistent concern with the Bible’s “patriarchal” and “anti-Semitic” overtones. For those from my background (Oneness Pentecostal), then, this study Bible has a decidedly “liberal” slant.
Personally, I found that feature to be part of its value because it provided, in nice summary form, an overview of the mainline Protestant view of Scripture. In fact, included at the end are several articles on the authority and proper interpretation of Scripture that are very helpful in understanding this overall approach, which often appears so foreign and even offensive to Pentecostal interpretive sensibilities. Even if one disagrees (vehemently, perhaps) with any number of the claims made and conclusions reached, one still receives the benefit of seeing those propositions in context which helps those who disagree to craft more effective responses.
One thing that I appreciated was the deep commitment to illuminating the original context. I gleaned numerous insights on the ANE or Greco-Roman background of the text that wouldn’t be made available to the reader in, say, the “Life Application Study Bible.” Of course, this was often presented as a way to RESTRICT the meaning of the text, but the insights themselves were nonetheless valid.
Now, when I began this reading project about three years ago (with the now-ridiculous-sounding hope of completing my read-through in a single year), I was aware of the particular “bias.” Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to find that several notably conservative scholars had contributed at significant points (e.g., Joel Green on Luke, James R. Edwards on Romans, and Donald Hagner on Hebrews). I was further pleased to note the many places where more conservative views were acknowledged without disdain. On the whole, though decidedly “liberal,” there were a fair number of attempts at presenting an overall-balanced perspective. Enough, at least, to keep me from getting disgusted and giving up the book altogether!
There is a good bit of repetition but, of course, that is to be expected, I suppose. Study Bibles are reference works not really designed to be read “cover-to-cover”; therefore, each contributor tried to address all the relevant issues within the text rather than simply assuming they had been covered by earlier contributors. On the whole, I am glad that I took the time to work my way slowly through this book; the amount of information contained requires a slow pace. Also, I am glad that I read the work “cover-to-cover” because it gave me a sense of the mainline Protestant approach to the entire Bible…rather than just to this or that particular book.
Obviously, this is not, at least from my perspective, a “new convert’s” study Bible…one would be MUCH better served to begin with the “Apostolic Study Bible.” However, for more mature Christians, this work serves as a kind of broad introduction to the mainline Protestant way of thinking. If not ultimately convincing (at least, for me it wasn’t), it was at least enlightening.
July 28, 2011
Tremendous notes in both the canonical and deuterocanonical texts. Although it is very liberal this is a good text for conservatives to re-evaluate how they are approaching the Scripture and whether or not their scope is broad enough.
Also the text has a variety of special studies, etc, and the connecting Scripture references are enlightening. This set along with the commentary that goes with it, and the Pastor's BIble study make for a tremendous enhancement to one's spiritual walk.
Also the text has a variety of special studies, etc, and the connecting Scripture references are enlightening. This set along with the commentary that goes with it, and the Pastor's BIble study make for a tremendous enhancement to one's spiritual walk.
July 21, 2009
The best Bible in my library of Bibles.
June 1, 2019
I like the New Interpreter's Study Bible-NRSV. I especially like this leather bound edition because it was a gift from a dear friend.
The study notes are the best that I've found for historical information and interpretive perspective that is solidly in the Mainline Protestant stream of exegesis. But I can only give it three stars because I find that I am moving past mainline Protestantism's historical-critical exegetical method and am finding more nourishment for my soul if I read the Bible prayerfully--what I God trying to say to me, today, in this passage? That generally leads me away from wanting to know historical accuracy and the kinds of questions the Form Critical method answers; and leads me to a more allegorical approach that tries to stay true to what we know historically but taking some imaginative and spiritual leaps that make God's words in Scripture words to my existential situation. So for any student of the Bible who is still wanting to answer the question, "What does the text say?" I highly recommend the New Interpreter's Study Bible-NRSV. For those who are wanting to answer the question, "What is God trying to say to me, today, in this word from God?" you can still use the NISB as a solid platform; but for the leap of faith into a prayerful encounter with the Holy Spirit … you're on your own.
The study notes are the best that I've found for historical information and interpretive perspective that is solidly in the Mainline Protestant stream of exegesis. But I can only give it three stars because I find that I am moving past mainline Protestantism's historical-critical exegetical method and am finding more nourishment for my soul if I read the Bible prayerfully--what I God trying to say to me, today, in this passage? That generally leads me away from wanting to know historical accuracy and the kinds of questions the Form Critical method answers; and leads me to a more allegorical approach that tries to stay true to what we know historically but taking some imaginative and spiritual leaps that make God's words in Scripture words to my existential situation. So for any student of the Bible who is still wanting to answer the question, "What does the text say?" I highly recommend the New Interpreter's Study Bible-NRSV. For those who are wanting to answer the question, "What is God trying to say to me, today, in this word from God?" you can still use the NISB as a solid platform; but for the leap of faith into a prayerful encounter with the Holy Spirit … you're on your own.
October 8, 2021
I'm reading this edition of the Bible in conjunction with a reading and study class of the the New Testament I am taking through my church. Since the class just started, these are only my initial impressions, but I am appreciating the fine organization of the book which is very logical and by bookmarking various sections, it is easy to access anything you want to put you hands on.
I am also pleased with the contents including the glossary, the maps, abbreviations and a handy list of excursuses. but most of all, as a student and reader, I like how previous or upcoming passages that relate to your current reading are referenced by chapter and verse, but also with what appear to me to be well referenced (reliable) comments and information. They are plentiful and repeated every time (it seems) as they become relevant to the topic being discussed. It adds so much understanding and meaning to what is being read in my humble opinion.
I am also pleased with the contents including the glossary, the maps, abbreviations and a handy list of excursuses. but most of all, as a student and reader, I like how previous or upcoming passages that relate to your current reading are referenced by chapter and verse, but also with what appear to me to be well referenced (reliable) comments and information. They are plentiful and repeated every time (it seems) as they become relevant to the topic being discussed. It adds so much understanding and meaning to what is being read in my humble opinion.
April 13, 2020
Currently reading-for the first time in my life I actually can actually understand what I'm reading!
April 22, 2021
One of the best annotated Bibles around. Most of the commentators are excellent and insightful.
December 17, 2021
I was very impressed with the copious notes and several appendices that provide context for the scriptures.
November 13, 2025
My favorite interpretation.
November 26, 2017
Great Bible with great notes. I’m not a fan of NRSV after taking Greek and having all the mistakes in the translation pointed out to me (most of which were translated better in the RSV), but it is decent enough. The notes in this are very scholarly, accessible, and helpful. They lean a little towards an expansionist viewpoint.
January 5, 2015
This is an excellent translation and a great study Bible. For academic study of the text I recommend this translation over any other. However, as with most study Bibles, you must keep in mind that the notes for any particular book in here will have been written by a single author, and as a result are going to be focused on that particular interpreter's perspective. If you can, I'd recommend getting several other competent study Bibles in addition to this one. (and, of course, continuing to read other scholarship on the Bible)
April 25, 2012
Overall this is an excellent study Bible. It is from an historical theological tradition, but is also fairly liberal in its approach and application of the Scripture. Throughout the text are "excurses" and other helpful tools on words and doctrines. Whether a reader agrees with the theological perspectives of this study Bible it is sure to challenge and deepen one's own faith.
April 23, 2012
This NRSV bible comes with really helpful commentary and includes information showing when there has been dispute or confusion over translation. This version was required in my first biblical studies class in seminary and has stood me in good stead ever since.
June 28, 2007
One of my favorite Bibles!
January 17, 2012
I'm reading as part of a 32 week bible study group
April 3, 2011
A great translation with wonderfully witty footnotes.
December 6, 2013
The notes are in-depth and excellent. I love this translation.
November 2, 2016
I'm an agnostic but I like this bible's translation and informative footnotes.
February 3, 2025
Prob on eighth read-through of Holy Scripture.
Read
October 30, 2007still pondering my rating of this one...
August 5, 2011
Great study Bible--I just wish it had a concordance.
June 18, 2012
A good edition with interesting and insightful notes.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews